"Kilkenny Trust" that makes your mortgage "disappear "!

I must put up a blog about my seemingly unique system of making my mortgage disappear.

It involves, among other things a monthly direct debit out of my current account.

I believe there are very few people left using this method.
 
Who are the "freeman crowd". Has the Central Bank or the Law society made any comment. If not is there any body responsible for the legality of such schemes apart from the usual "seek legal advice"
 
The article leaves me with a disturbing image of Karl Deeter throwing rocks at drowning people (he does say he learned from experience).
 
It's a good analysis from Karl. My only criticism is that he outlines the scheme and possibly builds up people's hopes before he says in the middle of a long article

Now I'll give some concerns about this set up and why we are advising all of our clients to steer clear of this group.
Click to expand...

He then sets out 10 reasons for avoiding the scheme.

He should have highlighted that it is nonsense from the very start.

He finishes up with

Of the people at the meeting none of them seemed highly literate financially, several disclosed that they were borrowers of sub-prime lenders and the common thread was that they were all vulnerable and perhaps willing to believe something too easily, because I have learned from experience that when a person is drowning that even if you throw them a rock and say it will float that they are willing to give it a try.
Click to expand...
 
If people involved are connected with Freeman on the Land the March 2012 Law Society Gazette has an article on this movement. I regret i dont know how to quote a reference.
 
A superb article here by Fergal Crehan, barrister.

Unlike most conspiracy theories, which are based on wilful misinterpretations of actual facts, much of the Freeman theory is entirely made up.

We don’t need to enter any contract to be subject to laws. The Social Contract doesn’t exist, it is a metaphor. You might as well ask to see the captain of the Ship of State, or demand a swatch of the Fabric of Society. But then Freemen are oddly literal-minded, as Mr. Bobby Sludds displayed recently.
Mr. Sludds, or “Bobby of the Family Sludds”, as he prefers (this is another Freeman quirk. They don’t accept the names The Man gives them) was charged in Wexford District Court with the latest in an impressive string of traffic offences. He demanded to see the judge’s oath, though an oath is a form of words, not a physical object. He went on to deny there was any such person as “Boddy Sludds” and shortly thereafter found himself in Cloverhill prison. It took an application to the High Court (this time playing by the rules) and an admission as to his identity before he walked free. He was later convicted of all charges. The State may be a fictional entity, but it owns the prisons, and they are all too real.
Click to expand...
 

Attachments

  • Law Society Gazette article on Freemen.pdf
    305.1 KB · Views: 58
demoivre said:
Any challenges to this "trust " crowd in the courts yet?
Click to expand...

Well Charlie Allen was ignored :)

[broken link removed]

Counsel also told the court that one of their party named as Mr Charlie Allen sent correspondence to the receivers claiming the receivers occupation of the the pub amounted to a trespass, and sought €10m in compensation.
Click to expand...
 
After being asked by a number of clients about the Charles Allen Trust, I met with representatives of the Trust in late July.

I believe that the representatives are well meaning (in respect of borrowers!), and wish to help vulnerable people. However, their steps are flawed in so many areas. One of the first questions I asked was who paid the stamp duty on the transfer of the properties into the trust. They said they do not pay stamp duty, as they do not have to. I believe the Revenue Commissioners will have a different view! (with interest and penalties!)

The representatives I met were unable to answer VAT queries on property transfers etc. (Some transfers would trigger substantial VAT liabilities on behalf of the borrower.)

I also asked how would the Trust protect the borrowers against the banks taking legal proceedings against them. Their answer was that the borrowers did not owe any monies to the banks, as the banks had not given them any monies. However, this type of argument was recently dismissed in a case involving Bank of Scotland (see link to High Court judgment below)
http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/...df184c75e110fe3480257bc8004df318?OpenDocument

Justice Rooke in the Meades case gave an acronym to the types of arguments being advanced: OPCA "Organised Peuedolegal Commercial Arguments". To a layman, such OPCA arguments sound convincing, but if you break the arguments down the weaknesses are exposed.

I believe borrowers would do much better engaging in a positive dialogue with the banks.

Jim Stafford
 
Jim Stafford said:
After being asked by a number of clients about the Charles Allen Trust, I met with representatives of the Trust in late July.

I believe that the representatives are well meaning (in respect of borrowers!), and wish to help vulnerable people. However, their steps are flawed in so many areas. One of the first questions I asked was who paid the stamp duty on the transfer of the properties into the trust. They said they do not pay stamp duty, as they do not have to. I believe the Revenue Commissioners will have a different view! (with interest and penalties!)

The representatives I met were unable to answer VAT queries on property transfers etc. (Some transfers would trigger substantial VAT liabilities on behalf of the borrower.)

I also asked how would the Trust protect the borrowers against the banks taking legal proceedings against them. Their answer was that the borrowers did not owe any monies to the banks, as the banks had not given them any monies. However, this type of argument was recently dismissed in a case involving Bank of Scotland (see link to High Court judgment below)
http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/...df184c75e110fe3480257bc8004df318?OpenDocument

Justice Rooke in the Meades case gave an acronym to the types of arguments being advanced: OPCA "Organised Peuedolegal Commercial Arguments". To a layman, such OPCA arguments sound convincing, but if you break the arguments down the weaknesses are exposed.

I believe borrowers would do much better engaging in a positive dialogue with the banks.

Jim Stafford
Click to expand...

Did anyone ask the more obvious question - if the Trust now owns the property, what's to stop them giving two fingers to the original borrower/owner and just using the property for their own purpose or benefit?

Are borrowers supposed to 'trust' the Trust?
 
How can they own the property if there are mortgages secured against it?
 
tvman said:
That article is like a press release from the Trust crowd.

"It is estimated there are just over €2bn in current assets in it. " ??

"estimated" as in claimed by the organisers!
Click to expand...

In may ways I think it would be a good idea if reporters were required to disclose their own interests went commenting on financial information, just like financial analysts etc... do.
 
I believe and Bear in mind that most present users of Freeman/or trust type stuff are people far down the road of Financial Annihilation and I also see the concerted views posted by people with vast legal expertize that this (freeman)stuff is clearly a scam.

I ask the Question.
If they are so far wrong , and clearly have no legs to stand on,
HOW come they can win?

Before anyone jumps at me , I am just asking.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top